Diversity in teams

Multiculturalism, pluralism and eccentricity at small scale



⚠️ Content warning ⚠️

Under-informed self-learning from a physical scientist on highly fraught social matters

Utility of team diversity

A note salad of arguments people make for the usefulness of having diverse people in teams/societies, mostly economic arguments.

Does diversity help attain wisdom? Sometimes, it seems. Scott Page calls this the diversity dividend. Quantifying when and how it works is of interest to me. Possibly diversity and tolerance is not just an intrinsic moral good, but may pay literal dividends in terms of avoiding groupthink in your team. What are the conditions for this happy state? Dobbin and Kalev (2016) argue that punishing failures can be counterproductive, in favour of voluntarism and transparency, which might harness status psychology of the incumbent power brokers.

McKinsey report, Vivian Hunt, Dennis Layton, and Sara Prince: Why diversity matters:

While correlation does not equal causation (greater gender and ethnic diversity in corporate leadership doesn’t automatically translate into more profit), the correlation does indicate that when companies commit themselves to diverse leadership, they are more successful.

(They could possibly have done better than that mealy-mouthed correlation phrasing if they wanted, via causal analysis.)

Other random readings: Chris Dillow, diversity trumps ability.

OK, I suspect most of that is not highly controversial, although people might perhaps set the bounds about what “too much” diversity is rather differently.

For a more lavish viewpoint, consider Georgi (2022):

The conclusion I draw from many years of physicist watching is that if you want to quantify what makes a great physicist, you must use a space with very many dimensions, a different dimension for each of the very many possible ways of thinking that may be important for really interesting problems. I sometimes imagine a spherical cow model of physics talent in N dimensions where N is large and talent in each dimension increases from 0 at the origin to 1 at the boundary, the N-dimensional version of the positive octant of a sphere. This, I learned from Wikipedia, is called an “orthant”. Each point in my N-dimensional orthant is a possible set of talents for physics. a possible set of talents for physics. Great physicists are out near the boundary, far away from the origin. If we assume that the talents are uniformly distributed, you can see that in my spherical cow model, the fraction of possible physics talents within ε of the boundary grows like N times ε for small ε. If N is very large, as I think it is, that means that there is a lot of space near the boundary! What this suggests to me is that there are a huge number of ways of being a great physicist and that in turn suggests there are many ways of being a great physicist that we haven’t seen yet.

In this model, we are allowing that diversity might be intrinsically important because that captures useful mavericks under the assumption that the competence space is high dimensional. The dimensionality of the space might be estimated; I think that many univariate testing enthusiasts will argue they have so estimated it and it turns out to have a very low intrinsic dimensionality. FWIW I can think of evidence about either way, depending on what I am going to argue for as the space within which diversity happens, but that this model is perhaps out-of-scope for now.

Hey, let us go further. Maybe diversity is an intrinsic moral good?

Bad strategies to cultivate diversity

Productise diversity training courses

tl;dr there is little evidence that diversity training, as typically practiced by large organisations keen to be seen to be diversity-friendly, is effective in practically improving friendliness towards diversity. There is weak evidence that these programs are actively hurtful. There is strong evidence that diversity training programs is an effective intervention to deflect law-suits, bad PR and so on, thus protecting intstitutions from the negative consequences of ailing to attain friendliness towards a diverse workplace without actually requiring them to achieve it.

Dobbin and Kalev have a miniature publication mill dedicated to digestible summaries of meta analyses and case studies here, all very readable, but also lacking in follow-up citations and thus not easy to verify (Dobbin and Kalev 2021, 2016, 2020; Kalev and Dobbin 2020). Dobbin and Kalev (2018) cites some actual research.

A large and excellent single study is Chang et al. (2019), which finds, if I might simplify a little, that one-off training is excellent at producing the feeling that something has been done, at least in people who were already somewhat sympathetic to the goal, but not effective in actually changing behaviour.

TODO: review the links in Matthew Yglesias’ How to be an anti-racist. They seem to be variable in quality.

Business executives believe that doing these programs has genuine value to the bottom line in terms of protecting them in the face of lawsuits, so they are fairly widespread. Critically, however, the lawsuit-protecting attributes of training do not require the trainings to be effective, and they generally are not. Indeed, as this summary from Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev in Harvard Business Review hints, the main question in this literature is whether the trainings backfire by annoying people:

Do people who undergo training usually shed their biases? Researchers have been examining that question since before World War II, in nearly a thousand studies (Paluck and Green 2009). It turns out that while people are easily taught to respond correctly to a questionnaire about bias, they soon forget the right answers. The positive effects of diversity training rarely last beyond a day or two, and a number of studies suggest that it can activate bias or spark a backlash. Nonetheless, nearly half of midsize companies use it, as do nearly all the Fortune 500.

Some of the backlashes can be very bad. Leigh Wilton, Evan Apfelbaum, and Jessica Good (Wilton, Apfelbaum, and Good 2019) find that emphasizing themes of multiculturalism can increase subjects’belief in race essentialism (consider Tema Okun’s work in this light) while Madeline E. Heilman and Brian Welle find (Heilman and Welle 2006) that when teams are assembled with an explicit diversity goal in mind, women and Black group members are perceived as less competent, and “this effect occurred regardless of the proportional representation of women or the degree of the groups’s heterogeneity”.

I don’t think many on the left are actually super enthusiastic about these diversity trainings, but the general sense is also that only a bitter crank would actually complain about them. But there is real evidence that they are at least sometimes making things worse, which strikes me as a big deal. For example, Michelle Duguid and Melissa Thomas-Hunt (Duguid and Thomas-Hunt 2015) find that when you tell people that stereotyping is widespread, they stereotype more.

Implicit Association Tests

Replicability-Index has an interesting round up of Implicit Bias Research, by which they mean the premise that a crucial source of inequity in practice, and good point of leverage, is subconscious sensory cues:

The controversial and novel suggestion was that prejudice could work like color perception. We automatically notice skin color and our unconscious guides our actions based on this information. Eventually the term implicit bias was coined to refer to automatic prejudice.

Some highly cited studies suggested that subliminal priming influences behaviour without awareness (Bargh et al., 1996; Devine, 1989). However, in the past decade it has become apparent that these results are not credible (Schimmack, 2020).

For a layperson guide try Implicit bias trainings are used to fight racism, but IAT science is flawed.

Worth a read. The assertion is not that prejudice, personal or institutional, does not exist. Rather, the assertion is that unconscious bias, as measured by the Implicit Association Test, cannot be shown to be important on current evidence. It does not seem a stretch to argue subconscious cues exist and do something; e.g. it seems to me that I pre-judge people who do not look like me all the time, on a variety of dimensions, even if I would prefer that I did not. On the other hand, I do my best to notice such prejudice in myself and to compensate for it. It is difficult to assess how successful I am at that. I surely do not compensate for my instinctual prejudice perfectly. But whether I do or not, there is in me, as in everyone, a whole layer of thought and practice between instinct and action, which IAT measures ignore. Worse, to the degree that IAT-bias might be important, it seems unlikely that it can be persistently improved by training of the sort usually delivered.

tl;dr The evidence is weak that IAT measures an essential ingredient of practical prejudice and also weak that prejudice can be fixed in any persistent way by a productised training course delivered over a few days.

If I interpret this article correctly, I am led to wonder if this particular notion of prejudice gains public traction because it is one that you can simply wash away with some simple, commodifiable training, which would be convenient for various interests. (“We have been accused of being biased in the past but now we have paid for X sessions of anti-bias training so shut up.”) A world in which bias was harder to address and harder to measure would be less convenient for the PR needs of modern institutions.

This measure has a tokenism/table stakes risk.

Broader models

Bursztyn and Yang (2022):

We establish a number of stylized facts. First, we document four facts on the pattern of misperceptions. (a) Misperceptions about others are widespread across domains, and they do not merely stem from measurement errors. (b) Misperceptions about others are very asymmetric: Namely, beliefs are disproportionately concentrated on one side relative to the truth. (c) Misperceptions regarding in-group members are substantially smaller than those regarding out-group members. (d) One’s own attitudes and beliefs are strongly, positively associated with (mis)perceptions about others’ attitudes and beliefs on the same issues. Second, we present three patterns on the effects of recalibrating misperceptions. (a)Experimental treatments to recalibrate misperceptions generally work as intended. (b) Treatments that are qualitative and narrative in nature tend to have larger effects on correcting misperceptions. (c) Although some treatments lead to important changes in behaviors, large changes in behaviors often only occur in studies that examine behavioral adjustments immediately after the interventions, suggesting a potential rigidity in the mapping between misperceptions and some behaviors.

Alternatives that might be worth trying out

This is a hard area that I am really interested in. I am vaguely sad that we seem to make so little progress here; Often rather than substantive change people get stuck in a tokenism/table stakes argument about cheap talk.

It is easy to imagine other ways of measuring workplace diversity and safety, albeit ones that institutions would be less likely to support. Sexual harassment complaints and resolutions, anonymous surveys of employee wellbeing etc. These require organisational commitment and put the weight of responsibilities on the institutions rather than the individuals, however, and that is clearly going to get some pushback.

Whether token and/or ineffectual efforts are better at least than no effort is a hot button topic. Also whether tokenistic efforts detract from substantive efforts, that one can get you in a fight; This is the classic table stakes/tokenism argument.

For the moment, since this is my blog, we have the luxury of ignoring that one and moving on to considering effective interventions.

Data-driven interventions

Gino and Coffman (2021) claim to have a list of prescriptions to deliver diversity interventions. Frustratingly the actual study and data is not linked from the article and I cannot find it, so I cannot really endorse it. I hope it turns up because the effects they claim are significant and highly actionable.

Methodological note: Data-driven interventions into human systems is hard at the best of times and this is definitionally super-hard because be expect intervention effects to be important here. That means we are at risk of failing to generalise if we are not careful.

Which social norms?

And how do we foster them? Which ones are attainable? Which ones are best? Test case: norms of speech.

Stories

There is evidence, I am told, that narrative can also improve your empathy for other people.(Johnson, Huffman, and Jasper 2014; Bormann and Greitemeyer 2015; Oatley 2016; Kidd and Castano 2013). I would like to know more about that.

Institutions

There is a review of institutional arrangements that help with sexual harassment cases in Dobbin and Kalev (2020), but it is lacking in supporting evidence. Obviously I need more and better links on this theme.

Neurodiversity

Often when we talk about diversity we assume a classic minority group, based on ethnicity or gender. But what about people with invisibly different brains? Is there a space for PTSD in organisational culture? Autism? Depression? Borderline personality disorder? Sociopathy? just plain eccentric

What does medicalisation of neurotypes even do? There was a time when drapetomania was a subject of much workplace friction.

Autism Spectrum issues are pertinent for me.

See autism and allism.

Incoming

References

Aleta, Alberto, and Yamir Moreno. 2019. The Dynamics of Collective Social Behavior in a Crowd Controlled Game.” EPJ Data Science 8 (1): 1–16.
Axelrod, Robert, Joshua J. Daymude, and Stephanie Forrest. 2021. Preventing Extreme Polarization of Political Attitudes.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118 (50).
Bai, Xuechunzi, Miguel R. Ramos, and Susan T. Fiske. 2020. As Diversity Increases, People Paradoxically Perceive Social Groups as More Similar.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117 (23): 12741–49.
Baldassarri, Delia, and Maria Abascal. 2020. Diversity and Prosocial Behavior.” Science 369 (6508): 1183–87.
Baron, Robert S. 2005. So Right It’s Wrong: Groupthink and the Ubiquitous Nature of Polarized Group Decision Making.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37:219–53. Academic Press.
Bar-Yam, Yaneer, and David Kantor. 2018. A Mathematical Theory of Interpersonal Interactions and Group Behavior.” arXiv.
Billings, Stephen B., Eric Chyn, and Kareem Haggag. 2021. The Long-Run Effects of School Racial Diversity on Political Identity.” American Economic Review: Insights 3 (3): 267–84.
Bormann, Daniel, and Tobias Greitemeyer. 2015. Immersed in Virtual Worlds and Minds: Effects of In-Game Storytelling on Immersion, Need Satisfaction, and Affective Theory of Mind.” Social Psychological and Personality Science 6 (6): 646–52.
Broockman, David, and Joshua Kalla. 2016. Durably Reducing Transphobia: A Field Experiment on Door-to-Door Canvassing.” Science 352 (6282): 220–24.
Bruner, Justin, and Cailin O’Connor. 2017. Power, Bargaining, and Collaboration.” In Power, Bargaining, and Collaboration. Vol. 1. Oxford University Press.
Bursztyn, Leonardo, and David Y. Yang. 2022. Misperceptions About Others.” Annual Review of Economics 14 (1): 425–52.
Camargo, Braz, Ralph Stinebrickner, and Todd R. Stinebrickner. 2010. Interracial Friendships in College.” Working Paper 15970. National Bureau of Economic Research.
Carnes, Molly, Patricia G. Devine, Linda Baier Manwell, Angela Byars-Winston, Eve Fine, Cecilia E. Ford, Patrick Forscher, et al. 2015. The effect of an intervention to break the gender bias habit for faculty at one institution: a cluster randomized, controlled trial.” Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 90 (2): 221–30.
Carrell, Scott E., Mark Hoekstra, and James E. West. 2015. The Impact of Intergroup Contact on Racial Attitudes and Revealed Preferences.” Working Paper 20940. National Bureau of Economic Research.
Chang, Edward H., Katherine L. Milkman, Dena M. Gromet, Robert W. Rebele, Cade Massey, Angela L. Duckworth, and Adam M. Grant. 2019. The Mixed Effects of Online Diversity Training.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116 (16): 7778–83.
Crompton, Catherine J, Danielle Ropar, Claire VM Evans-Williams, Emma G Flynn, and Sue Fletcher-Watson. 2020. Autistic Peer-to-Peer Information Transfer Is Highly Effective.” Autism 24 (7): 1704–12.
Danan, Eric, Thibault Gajdos, Brian Hill, and Jean-Marc Tallon. 2016. Robust Social Decisions.” American Economic Review 106 (9): 2407–25.
Dinesen, Peter Thisted, and Kim Mannemar Sønderskov. 2013. Ethnic Diversity and Social Trust: The Role of Exposure in the Micro-Context.” Ethnic Diversity and Social Capital.
Dobbin, Frank, and Alexandra Kalev. 2016. Why Diversity Programs Fail.” Harvard Business Review, July 1, 2016.
———. 2018. Why Doesn’t Diversity Training Work? The Challenge for Industry and Academia.” Anthropology Now 10 (2): 48–55.
———. 2020. Why Sexual Harassment Programs Backfire.” Harvard Business Review, May 1, 2020.
———. 2021. The Civil Rights Revolution at Work: What Went Wrong.” Annual Review of Sociology 47 (1): null.
Du, Yuhao, Jessica Nordell, and Kenneth Joseph. 2021. Insidious Nonetheless: How Small Effects and Hierarchical Norms Create and Maintain Gender Disparities in Organizations.” arXiv:2110.04196 [Cs], October.
Duguid, Michelle M., and Melissa C. Thomas-Hunt. 2015. Condoning stereotyping? How awareness of stereotyping prevalence impacts expression of stereotypes.” The Journal of Applied Psychology 100 (2): 343–59.
Duhigg, Charles. 2016. What Google Learned From Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team.” The New York Times, February 25, 2016, sec. Magazine.
Emerson, Joelle. 2017. Don’t Give Up on Unconscious Bias Training — Make It Better.” Harvard Business Review, April 28, 2017.
Farrell, Henry, and Cosma Rohilla Shalizi. 2015. Pursuing Cognitive Democracy.” From Voice to Influence: Understanding Citizenship in a Digital Age; Allen, D., Light, J., Eds, 211–31.
Forscher, Patrick S., Chelsea Mitamura, Emily L. Dix, William T. L. Cox, and Patricia G. Devine. 2017. Breaking the Prejudice Habit: Mechanisms, Timecourse, and Longevity.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 72 (September): 133–46.
Fu, Feng, and Long Wang. 2008. Coevolutionary Dynamics of Opinions and Networks: From Diversity to Uniformity.” Physical Review E 78 (1): 016104.
Georgi, Howard. 2022. Physics in a Diverse World or A Spherical Cow Model of Physics Talent.” arXiv:2203.09485 [Hep-Ph, Physics:hep-Th, Physics:physics], March.
Gino, Francesca, and Katherine Coffman. 2021. Unconscious Bias Training That Works.” Harvard Business Review, September 1, 2021.
Hamilton, Marcus J., Robert S. Walker, and Christopher P. Kempes. 2020. Diversity Begets Diversity in Mammal Species and Human Cultures.” Scientific Reports 10 (1): 19654.
Haslam, Nick, Brock Bastian, Paul Bain, and Yoshihisa Kashima. 2006. Psychological Essentialism, Implicit Theories, and Intergroup Relations.” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9 (1): 63–76.
Heilman, Madeline E., and Brian Welle. 2006. Disadvantaged by Diversity? The Effects of Diversity Goals on Competence Perceptions1.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 36 (5): 1291–1319.
Hong, Lu, and Scott E. Page. 2004. Groups of Diverse Problem Solvers Can Outperform Groups of High-Ability Problem Solvers.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101 (46): 16385–89.
Horwitz, Sujin K., and Irwin B. Horwitz. 2007. The Effects of Team Diversity on Team Outcomes: A Meta-Analytic Review of Team Demography.” Journal of Management 33 (6): 987–1015.
Jackson, Matthew O. 2009. Social Structure, Segregation, and Economic Behavior.” Presented as the Nancy Schwartz Memorial Lecture, February.
Jeppesen, Lars Bo, and Karim R. Lakhani. 2010. Marginality and Problem-Solving Effectiveness in Broadcast Search.” Organization Science 21 (5): 1016–33.
Johnson, Dan R., Brandie L. Huffman, and Danny M. Jasper. 2014. Changing Race Boundary Perception by Reading Narrative Fiction.” Basic and Applied Social Psychology 36 (1): 83–90.
Kalev, Alexandra, and Frank Dobbin. 2020. Companies Need to Think Bigger Than Diversity Training.” Harvard Business Review, October 20, 2020.
Khazan, Olga. 2021. Weird: The Power of Being an Outsider in an Insider World. Hachette Go.
Kidd, David Comer, and Emanuele Castano. 2013. Reading Literary Fiction Improves Theory of Mind.” Science 342 (6156): 377–80.
Klug, Michael, and James P. Bagrow. 2016. Understanding the Group Dynamics and Success of Teams.” Royal Society Open Science 3 (4).
Lee, Neil, and Max Nathan. 2011. Does Cultural Diversity Help Innovation in Cities: Evidence from London Firms.” LSE Research Online Documents on Economics. London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
Levy, Sheri R., Chi-yue Chiu, and Ying-yi Hong. 2006. Lay Theories and Intergroup Relations.” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9 (1): 5–24.
Lublin, Joann S. 2015. New Report Finds a ‘Diversity Dividend’ at Work.” WSJ (blog).
Mahmoodi, Ali, Dan Bang, Karsten Olsen, Yuanyuan Aimee Zhao, Zhenhao Shi, Kristina Broberg, Shervin Safavi, et al. 2015. Equality Bias Impairs Collective Decision-Making Across Cultures.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112 (12): 3835–40.
Moss-Racusin, C. A., J. F. Dovidio, V. L. Brescoll, M. J. Graham, and J. Handelsman. 2012. Science Faculty’s Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 (41): 16474–79.
O’Connor, Cailin, and Justin Bruner. 2019. Dynamics and Diversity in Epistemic Communities.” Erkenntnis 84 (1): 101–19.
O’Connor, Cailin, and Jingyi Wu. 2021. How Should We Promote Transient Diversity in Science? MetaArXiv.
Oatley, Keith. 2016. Fiction: Simulation of Social Worlds.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 20 (8): 618–28.
Page, Scott E. 2008. The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies - New Edition. New edition with a New preface by the author. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
———. 2011. Diversity and Complexity. Primers in Complex Systems. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Paluck, Elizabeth Levy, and Donald P. Green. 2009. Prejudice Reduction: What Works? A Review and Assessment of Research and Practice.” Annual Review of Psychology 60 (1): 339–67.
Peter Skerry. 2002. Beyond Sushiology: Does Diversity Work? Brookings Institution (blog).
Peters, Ole, and Alexander Adamou. 2015. An Evolutionary Advantage of Cooperation.” arXiv:1506.03414 [Nlin, q-Bio, q-Fin], June.
Pettigrew, Thomas, and Linda Tropp. 2000. “Does Intergroup Contact Reduce Prejudice? Recent Meta-Analytic Findings.” In, 93–114.
Pratto, Felicia, Jim Sidanius, and Shana Levin. 2006. Social Dominance Theory and the Dynamics of Intergroup Relations: Taking Stock and Looking Forward.” European Review of Social Psychology 17 (1): 271–320.
Prelec, Dražen, H. Sebastian Seung, and John McCoy. 2017. A Solution to the Single-Question Crowd Wisdom Problem.” Nature 541 (7638): 532–35.
Risse, Leonora. 2020. Leaning in: Is Higher Confidence the Key to Women’s Career Advancement? The Australian Journal of Labour Economics 23 (1): 43–78.
Rowe, Mary. 1977. “The Saturn’s Rings Phenomenon.” In Conference on Women’s Leadership and Authority in the Health Professions, Santa Cruz, CA.
Rubin, Hannah, and Cailin O’Connor. 2018. Discrimination and Collaboration in Science.” Philosophy of Science 85 (3): 380–402.
Sidanius, Jim, James H. Liu, John S. Shaw, and Felicia Pratto. 1994. Social Dominance Orientation, Hierarchy Attenuators and Hierarchy Enhancers: Social Dominance Theory and the Criminal Justice System.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 24 (4): 338–66.
Simonovits, Gábor, Gábor Kézdi, and Péter Kardos. 2017. Seeing the World Through the Other’s Eye: An Online Intervention Reducing Ethnic Prejudice.” American Political Science Review, November, 1–8.
Sommers, Samuel R., and Michael I. Norton. 2006. Lay Theories About White Racists: What Constitutes Racism (and What Doesn’t).” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9 (1): 117–38.
Syed, Matthew. 2020. Rebel Ideas: The Power of Diverse Thinking. S.l.: John Murray.
Trouche, Emmanuel, Emmanuel Sander, and Hugo Mercier. 2014. Arguments, More Than Confidence, Explain the Good Performance of Reasoning Groups.” SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2431710. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.
Walton, Gregory M., Christine Logel, Jennifer M. Peach, Steven J. Spencer, and Mark P. Zanna. 2015. Two Brief Interventions to Mitigate a ‘Chilly Climate’ Transform Women’s Experience, Relationships, and Achievement in Engineering.” Journal of Educational Psychology 107 (2): 468–85.
Weisbuch, Gérard, Guillaume Deffuant, Frédéric Amblard, and Jean-Pierre Nadal. 2002. Meet, Discuss, and Segregate! Complexity 7 (3): 55–63.
Whitley, Bernard E., Andrew Luttrell, and Tollie Schultz. 2022. The Measurement of Racial Colorblindness.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, July, 01461672221103414.
Wilton, Leigh S., Evan P. Apfelbaum, and Jessica J. Good. 2019. Valuing Differences and Reinforcing Them: Multiculturalism Increases Race Essentialism.” Social Psychological and Personality Science 10 (5): 681–89.

No comments yet. Why not leave one?

GitHub-flavored Markdown & a sane subset of HTML is supported.